Who Really Was Jesus Christ?
Who Really Runs Inequality Schools?
And Other Blasphemies...
The cause of extremist activities is not religion per se. The vast majority of Christians, Jews, and Moslems of the world are anything but fundamentalists and are sickened by the slaughter of innocents. It is not even fair to brand all fundamentalists as theocratic fascists, although the intense ressentiment characteristic of most contemporary forms of religious fundamentalism point them in that direction. --David Schweickart, After Capitalism
. . . when you ask straight questions... then the straight answer Nature keeps on giving back is in- deed an uncompromising “No”. No, human beings simply do not have these supernatural powers of cognition or action... And no, the human mind simply does not persist after bodily death. Investigate the claims, and you find there is nothing to them --Nicholas Humphrey, The Mind Made Flesh
Last week a teacher accused me of speaking BLASPHEMOUSLY when, in a playful mood I said that “the angel with the sword is coming for me”.
I was told that I shouldn’t mix my “personal fantasy” with religion. Interesting, since so much of religion is imaginary. But, then imagination is, sometimes good.
I make no apologies for any fantasies I have. They are a good deal less harmful than many realities both at Inequality Schools and in such beneficiaries of American democracy as Iraq.
In fact my remark was a quote, which I had creatively shaped for my own purposes.
There is something strange about the idea that an image or symbol could be protected from use by non-believers. After all, the point of religion is to spread (like a disease) and one of the prices you pay for having a successful (popular/widespread) religion is that your symbols have wider currency than you might personally like. Angels are symbols within western culture, whether you like it or not. See the image below. What’s offensive to me about the picture is not the allusion to an angel, but the very real ugliness and harmfulness of prostitution--and the internet has just made more forms of prostitution possible.
insert photo
In any case, since one way to interpret blasphemy is as not treating religion with the respect and seriousness it deserves, I propose to take a serious look at one famous religious figure, with the help of Professor Nicholas Humphrey, a well-known psychologist.
However, before doing that, I want to add one thing. I’m not sure that I was blasphemous rather than openly showing my non-belief, and I’m not sure the person who criticized me wasn’t more offended by my transparent non-religiousness than by any disrespect toward their beliefs. In other words, the word “blasphemy” is used as a cover for censoring beliefs one doesn’t share. What was offensive was not anything I said about religion, but the fact that I don’t have one, and the fact that I wasn’t trying to hide the fact. That kind of censorship might be called theocratic fascism. Then again, I could be wrong. But, if I am wrong, then it should be possible for a non-believer to discuss religious beliefs openly and submit them to the same standards of evidence and rationality as any other form of belief. And, if you say I can’t do that, then I think you do merit the label ‘fascist’.
Nicholas Humphrey’s “Behold the Man”
Humphrey’s topic in this essay is the supernatural, the idea that some human beings have special powers. He points out (as in the quote above) that there is simply no reason to believe that anyone has such powers. However, there are people who believe that they have such powers. And, the most famous person who believed in his own supernatural powers was Jesus Christ.
Of course, there is a psychological question here, and Humphrey is a psychologist. Why do some people believe in supernatural powers? (Especially given that their belief is not based on evidence, but, rather misinterpretation of the available evidence.) Humphrey’s strategy is to examine Biblical evidence and use contemporary psychological knowledge to create a portrait of Jesus Christ which explains how he might have come to believe that he possessed supernatural powers.
Humphrey’s first point is that Jesus never did anything so terribly wondrous as you would have expected him to do if he really did have supernatural powers:
... when it comes down to it, Jesus just does not seem to have behaved enough like the real thing. His supernatural powers (even as recorded by friends) simply were not at the level we should expect of them: they were in fact surprisingly restricted, and not only restricted, but restricted in a very suggestive way. Not to put to fine a point on it, Jesus, in most if not all of his public demonstrations behaved just like a conjuror. --Humphrey, 2002, p. 210
Humphrey points out that already in the Second Century, Lucian listed the sorts of tricks conjurors in the region were performing. “They included walking on water, materialization and dematerialization, clairvoyance, expulsion of demons, and prophecy.” (Humphrey, 2002, p. 211) In addition he explains how to do some of them, and also discusses one “pseudo-miracle worker” caller Marcus
... who regularly turned water into wine by mixing the water in one cup with red liquid from another cup while the onlooker’s attention was dis- tracted. (Smith, Jesus the Magician, cited by Humphrey 2002, p. 211)
Secondly, the Bible itself tells us that Jesus was not equally able to do his magic in front of all audiences. Jesus complained that not all audiences were receptive to his powers. And, then there is a famous passage in the Bible, “Oh lord why have you forsaken me?” That passage fits the suggestion that Jesus believed himself to possess powers which, in fact, he did not possess.
There is much more of interest in this fascinating article. Humphrey draws upon his experiences with Uri Geller and a young boy who believed himself to have magical powers in order to present a portrait of the kind of personality which Jesus might have had. I recommend the reader visit Humphrey’s website to find out more.
WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH INEQUALITY SCHOOLS?
In the case of Inequality schools, there is a kind of conspiracy of silence, a group effort to avoid uncomfortable questions. Non-believers are excluded from any conversations in which their non-belief might lead them to ask hard questions. Only the inner circle of believers can know the true motivation for policies, because believers know that they cannot defend their beliefs. Non-believers, in this way, become a second-class minority.
With this basic group psychology in place, it is hard for there to be any free or open discussion. All of the fundamentalists who make up the core of the administration have trained themselves for many years to avoid discussing possibly controversial issues with anyone who might disagree. Thus it seems natural to them that certain people should be shut out from any important policy decisions. Non-believers have the “wrong” beliefs and are, therefore, incapable of “rational” decision--i.e., decisions based upon religious ideas which cannot be defended.
Does this atmosphere deserve the label “fascistic”? One feature of fascism is the glorification of power over other people, and the absoluteness of that power. That feature is present through the unspoken rules of Inequality Schools, rules which demand total obedience.
So, when at least a third of my class doesn’t actually seem to have the English needed to do the work, we can ask about what policy lies behind that fact. It appears that someone decided to increase enrollment in Bratislava. They saw the presence of KIA motors in Slovakia as a chance to increase profits. And they were willing to sacrifice educational quality in order to achieve that goal. To be sure, some students will learn English quickly, and they deserve a chance. On the other hand, there is a fine line between admitting someone who hasn’t got the English to do the coursework, and probably won’t anytime soon and admitting someone who needs a few months to adjust. I’ve seen both cases. I have students currently who don’t understand assignments I make and who can’t answer a question on a quiz even when I tell them the answer in advance....
To be sure, these students are getting extra help, but the motivation for expanding the number of students remains obscure, and that obscurity is neither healthy nor democratic. Who decided this and when did they decide it? And on what basis?
Another way to put the point is that at the core of Inequality Schools is something rotten, something which is fundamentally opposed to free thought and rational inquiry ... And when well-meaning confused people set out to teach “critical thinking” or “higher level thinking” they will repeatedly run up against the wall of their own stubborn dogmatism. Because of the fundamental incoherence of their own beliefs, they cannot succeed in teaching or encouraging that which they themselves do not practice.
Don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain! (The Wizard of Oz)
Some readers may say: Yeah, So What? This Is Supposed to be an Anti-Capitalist Samizdat? Have you forgotten?
The answer is really simple. The Man Behind the Curtain is, of course, Thames Wilson. And, he, either through his own funds, or through the funds of investors (or, possibly both) has the power to run Inequality Schools as he wishes.
But, you may say, isn’t the school Accredited? Short answer: so much the worse for the Accreditation Process.
For a helpful discussion of the role of investment in a non-capitalistic economy and a critique of the way it works today, see David Scheweikart, After Capitalism, Chapter 2, “Justifying Capitalism”, and Chapter 3.1.3, “The Social Control of Investment’.
Reference Nicholas Humphrey, The Mind Made Flesh; Frontiers of Psychology and Evolution, Oxford University Press, 2002
An Afterthought
It was in a light, cheerful spirit that I said my reason for quitting my job early was to write. I don’t want to die after wasting three years of my life in service to a nasty joyless institution.
And it was in that free spirit I said that the angel with the sword was coming for me....
And like a true American Puritan, a fellow teacher did their best to squash my foolishness--branding my jollity as “blasphemy”. So much for the alleged motto of the Director, “Play”. It was, after all, that Most Notorious of Atheists Nietzsche who taught us about how joy and play are undermining of so much of what people think. This occurred to me after reading the following lines:
A great deal of gaiety leads to foolery, and Mozart had a share of both. . . when Mozart was overflowing with merriment some pranks were sure to be the result.... Occasionally his buffoonery was almost sublime.... (Roman Rolland’s Essays on Music)
And as a final word, just a little anti-Puritanism from Hanif Kureishi:
Desire is naughty and doesn’t conform to our ideals, which is why we have such a need of them. Desire mocks all human endeavour and makes it worthwhile. Desire is the original anarchist and undercover agent--no wonder people want it arrested and kept in a safe place. And just when we think we’ve got desire under control it lets us down or fills us with hope. Desire makes me laugh because it makes fools of us all. Still, rather a fool than a fascist. Intimacy, p. 44 (Faber and Faber 1998)
And yet another after-thought!
At the close of the previous calendar year the school’s director chose to dress up like a “female elf”. This was to reward students for contributing to a worthy cause.
I have nothing to say about that scenario, but I must remark that when I saw him dressed in this manner, his face revealed a sort of pleasure that struck me as bizarre.
He was smiling goofily, as if he thought he’d done something very clever.
This pleasure at cross-dressing is mysterious to me. I must, however, confess that I have appeared on stage in funny costumes, and,even, with make-up. But I’ve never been attracted by cross-dressing.
Could it be that an authoritarian person who needs strict rules and can only understand the universe in terms of simple rules actually needs to occasionally break social conventions in order to feel a sense of freedom? (I would actually say that is a defective notion of freedom; but I must stop....)
